The focus is clearly on "getting the grant". And the grant acts as an entity in itself, as it becomes a line in the CV of scientists, which will help them "get the next grant". The outcome of the grant becomes thus irrelevant. Maybe competition is missing?
It almost seems as a new model would take the world by storm, but it doesnt seem to arise. Even private research often falls for the same pitfalls, like how Deepmind keeps seeking to publish proprietary research in Nature, instead of creating an open ecosystem that will drive reinforcement-learning science forward.
That's the major problem humanity faces. Individuals wielding concentrated power are dangerous, but they're also at least capable of thinking about something other than their immediate short-term interest. The masses, as aggregated through votes or purchasing decisions? They're structurally incapable of it.
The problem is more parochialism than it is short-term thinking. And both sets of entities (powerful individuals and aggregate masses) are capable of parochialism.
I think this is a dangerous delusion:
Historically, centralized control has been a disaster because those individuals wielding power believed they could think of something greater… but actually lacked the skill. So we ended up with simplistic concepts that failed at scale, ideas that never could work because they missed key details, etc. By contrast, society gets on with the business of building the future in spite of and not due to that meddling by centralized power.
I think there's plenty enough of competition in academia. And competition alone doesn't help, because the metrics over which one loses or wins the race are not correlated with short or long-term worthiness. And while we can describe, even if somewhat vaguely, what makes worthy science, there's no way I know of to have a stable system in which that metric drives funding.
> Deepmind keeps seeking to publish proprietary research in Nature, instead of creating an open ecosystem that will drive reinforcement-learning science forward
This research at least has some feedback: Google funds it because it expects to make money off using its results in practice, so the research has to be at least somewhat correlated with reality. Unfortunately, this structure also means that "open ecosystem" isn't pursued.